Has anyone tried to fit a 65/66 Shelby Rear Seat Delete insert into a 67/68 Mustang? Will it fit or will there be gaps on the sides?
In past years I've seen the 66 rear shelf in a 67 GT350, maintaining the 67 trap door. The tire section and contour of the 65 shelf is completely different.
Cheers ~Earl J
Quote from: tesgt350 on June 22, 2019, 01:15:53 PM
Has anyone tried to fit a 65/66 Shelby Rear Seat Delete insert into a 67/68 Mustang? Will it fit or will there be gaps on the sides?
I had one in my '68. The tire indent needs to be fit to the rear panel whether it is a trap door or just the panel.
I have a fiberglass '66 "racing" panel in there now. For that the trap door is retained unmodified. It's a better fit and you don't need to mess with the spare tire.
I'd recommend that to you, the '66 panel.
Other then cutting the rear panel for the '65, you just drop it in. I have a few screws to hold mine from rattling around. It's a good fit.
I can snap a couple of pics tomorrow if you want to see it. Too dark right now.
Quote from: SFM5S000 on June 22, 2019, 05:07:25 PM
In past years I've seen the 66 rear shelf in a 67 GT350, maintaining the 67 trap door. The tire section and contour of the 65 shelf is completely different.
Cheers ~Earl J
Thanks
Quote from: shelbydoug on June 22, 2019, 08:26:18 PM
Quote from: tesgt350 on June 22, 2019, 01:15:53 PM
Has anyone tried to fit a 65/66 Shelby Rear Seat Delete insert into a 67/68 Mustang? Will it fit or will there be gaps on the sides?
I had one in my '68. The tire indent needs to be fit to the rear panel whether it is a trap door or just the panel.
I have a fiberglass '66 "racing" panel in there now. For that the trap door is retained unmodified. It's a better fit and you don't need to mess with the spare tire.
I'd recommend that to you, the '66 panel.
Thanks
Other then cutting the rear panel for the '65, you just drop it in. I have a few screws to hold mine from rattling around. It's a good fit.
I can snap a couple of pics tomorrow if you want to see it. Too dark right now.
I had a 67 years ago that I put one in, it fit perfectly. I used GE silicon it spots, in case I ever had to remove it or wanted to. I never did!
Oh forgot...the profile of the 65 trap door/rear panel, is different then the 67/8. If you use the 65 panel you do have to fabricate fillers to mate the two together.
If you use the 66, you don't need to deal with that.
Also the size of the tire is pretty much limited to something like a 195 profile.
I've got a shelf in one of mine but no idea where it came from. But it looks bad azz.
Opps, I meant I put a 66 rear shelf in my 67. no tire to worry about.
The original rear seat assembly weighs 85 pounds so that is one big serious way to reduce weight by eliminating the assembly.
Room wise, it's better then a Porsche back seat back there but not by much. I had someone back there in 1972, but they were pretty stressed out when they came out of there, plus the rear spring engineer in these cars apparently was some sort of slacker. Maybe it was so bad in the back seat they couldn't actually get living humans to test it?
If you glue it down, you loose the access to the secret storage compartment underneath.
Quote from: Bigfoot on June 22, 2019, 10:17:58 PM
I've got a shelf in one of mine but no idea where it came from. But it looks bad azz.
Pictures?
Was just apart for paint. Still getting put back together.
That looks very good.
Very nice Doug.
The only down side to running the 66 shelf (if you really call this an issue) is access to the rear shocks. (How often does one do anyway?)
~E
Quote from: shelbydoug on June 23, 2019, 07:59:48 AM
The original rear seat assembly weighs 85 pounds so that is one big serious way to reduce weight by eliminating the assembly.
Room wise, it's better then a Porsche back seat back there but not by much. I had someone back there in 1972, but they were pretty stressed out when they came out of there, plus the rear spring engineer in these cars apparently was some sort of slacker. Maybe it was so bad in the back seat they couldn't actually get living humans to test it?
If you glue it down, you loose the access to the secret storage compartment underneath.
. Well back in the day we used to go cruising with two of my high jump teammates in the back seat,one was 6'3", the other was 6'5",so it's "functional ".Of course "comfortable "is a completely different concept.... 8)
Quote from: 557 on June 23, 2019, 12:52:35 PM
Quote from: shelbydoug on June 23, 2019, 07:59:48 AM
The original rear seat assembly weighs 85 pounds so that is one big serious way to reduce weight by eliminating the assembly.
Room wise, it's better then a Porsche back seat back there but not by much. I had someone back there in 1972, but they were pretty stressed out when they came out of there, plus the rear spring engineer in these cars apparently was some sort of slacker. Maybe it was so bad in the back seat they couldn't actually get living humans to test it?
If you glue it down, you loose the access to the secret storage compartment underneath.
. Well back in the day we used to go cruising with two of my high jump teammates in the back seat,one was 6'3", the other was 6'5",so it's "functional ".Of course "comfortable "is a completely different concept.... 8)
Putting someone in the back seat, depending on who is driving, it could cause irreversible brain damage. Also the rear would be riding on the bump stops.
Earl, the 65 panel didn't automatically come with the shock plug holes drilled. That was for the R models. You could drill them out here and plug them also. Once the rear shocks are set, you don't need to adjust them again.